<p>JHS, I can easily see how a public school can be desirable to a professor. At any top public, I’m willing to bet there are at least 6,000 undergrads who would be competitive at a top 5 private, which is around the undergrad population of one of those private schools. And if your sister-in-law is indeed one of the most respected scholars in her field, she would likely be teaching advanced courses, taken solely by those top kids. That means, to her, the student body absolutely seems 100% motivated and intelligent; but that doesn’t necessarily represent the entire student body.</p>
<p>On the other hand, for a prospective student who is competitive for the top privates, I don’t think such a school would be as desirable. They want to be surrounded by their peers. They don’t want a student body diluted by academically unqualified recruited athletes (which are a lot more common at publics), or having to compete with tens of thousands of other students, or feel lost in lecture halls of 300+ students, if they have a viable (private) alternative.</p>
<p>There are of course arguments in favor of public, but those are mostly cost related. Yet (top) publics are usually only cheaper than (top) privates when considering in-state tuition. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the top 2 publics to privates ranked 20+ (maybe even 30+ if we include LACs). Berkeley and Michigan carry a LOT more prestige than USC, BC, or BYU, and would probably be considered equals of NU and ND.</p>